Hurry and pass gun control before we have time to read it!

Ddawg wrote:

Ddawg wrote:

SpiffCoug wrote:

Good point, I guess there really is no substitute for guns. Simply put if you take away guns it will be much tougher to protect yourself from the government and hunt--animals and people.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Thank you for finally admitting that you don't want to simply control guns. You want to take them away. Thank you for admitting you don't actually believe in the Constitution or the rights of the people it sets out. You only believe in those with power to rule how they wish. Thank you for finally admitting you don't actually believe in freedom.

You forgot that I admitted to being a communist and that I worship the devil.



Do you think the right to bear arms includes tanks, missles, drones, nuclear and biological weapons? If not, why?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Your post is very illuminating - you revert to the ridiculous, non-serious, and laughable.



First off, if you desire to worship the devil and be a card carrying communist, that is your Constitutional right. No one will infringe on that. Have at it.



Secondly, as to owning missiles, biological weapons, etc. I would love to see you standing face to face with James Madison (Father of the Constitution), Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, George Washington, etc. - and present your arguments against the 2nd Amendment. I would love to video that short discussion and post it on YouTube.



Their response would be direct and to the point: "Sir, you are in error, and a buffoon. Have a nice day."

Awesome post.



But I would like know if you think there are limits to your 2nd amendment rights to arming yourself? For example is that right curtailed a bit for public safety reasons? If the 2nd Amendment is suppose to protect us against today's army don't we need to have much more powerful weaponry?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Please show me in the 2nd Amendment where is states that it's purpose is to protect us against today's army? That's someone's interpretation, and not expressly stated.



Here's the point - what you or I think is not really important. It's merely an exercise in expressing personal opinion. What really matters is what the courts think - especially the U.S. Supreme Court.



We've already discussed how Washington DC banned all handguns in 1976. The gun ban is called the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, but, it wasn't passed until Sept. 1976.



The law was very restrictive. It banned owning all handguns from 1976 on. Any handguns registered before 1976 must be unloaded, disassembled, and have a trigger lock installed. Essentially, a paperweight. Useless for personal defense if attacked in your home. That law stood for 32 years, until 2008.



In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the District of Columbia gun ban unconstitutional. The majority decision ruled that the 2nd Amendment has two parts.

1. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.

2. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.



Also, the majority SCOTUS decision held that the DC ban violated a citizens right to lawfully protect themselves. Also, requiring that a firearm be disassembled and locked with a trigger guard violates this basic right to own a firearm, for the purpose of self defense. Hence, as a U.S. citizen, per 2008 District of Columbia vs. Heller, you can own a handgun, and a lawful firearm in your home for protection.



Now, the question is - what is a lawful firearm? In the landmark case U.S. vs. Cruikshank, 1875, it was held that the 2nd Amendment applies to the U.S. Federal govt. and restricts their ability to restrict firearm ownership - not the individual State's ability to restrict gun ownership.



The reality is, gun laws vary considerably state to state. Both New York and California are very restrictive. I believe there are 39 states that, if you are 21 yrs. old, and register with the ATF, you can own a fully automatic machine gun. To include NV, AZ, UT, CO, TX, ID, MT, etc. The list goes on.



So, the reality is, this 2nd Amendment battle will be fought on a state by state basis. The liberal states will pass the most restrictive laws. It's a given. The more Conservative "red states" will be more supportive of gun ownership, to include CCW laws, and assault type weapon ownership. It's just that simple.

Are you really trying to argue the 2nd amendment does not apply to the states?



Also I wanted to point out that guy who argued the 2nd amendment exists to protect against the US military - his name was Thomas Jefferson (Not to mention Madison, Washington, Adams, Jay, etc - I don't think even Hamilton held out on this one).

I am pointing out that in past Supreme Court rulings, they have held that the Constitution, hence the 2nd Amendment is included, restrains the Federal govt. The states seem to have more latitude. I've been reading past SCOTUS cases as they apply to the 2nd Amendment, and that seems to be the way it shakes out, and that's they way it's been handled - gun laws and restrictions are state by state and can have wide variations.



Now, in the 2008 SCOTUS ruling, District of Columbia vs. Heller, they ruled that DC had overstepped their bounds and violated the 2nd Amendment when they banned all handgun ownership. What is stunning to me, is that local DC gun ban law stood for 32 years - unchallenged. Luckily, it was finally challenged and struck down.

Ddawg wrote:
I am pointing out that in past Supreme Court rulings, they have held that the Constitution, hence the 2nd Amendment is included, restrains the Federal govt. The states seem to have more latitude. I've been reading past SCOTUS cases as they apply to the 2nd Amendment, and that seems to be the way it shakes out, and that's they way it's been handled - gun laws and restrictions are state by state and can have wide variations.



Now, in the 2008 SCOTUS ruling, District of Columbia vs. Heller, they ruled that DC had overstepped their bounds and violated the 2nd Amendment when they banned all handgun ownership. What is stunning to me, is that local DC gun ban law stood for 32 years - unchallenged. Luckily, it was finally challenged and struck down.

Concur. The Constitution deals with limitations of the Federal Government. It was not intended to limit State governments, except through the privileges and immunities clause, nor private citizens. Hence, when someone claims, I have the freedom of speech, that isn't exactly true. The Federal Government cannot limit your speech (with notable exceptions), but if you are in my house, I sure can. The Supreme Court has transferred some of its limitations to State Governments as well--such as the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth amendments. But the State Governments are not automatically limited by the US Constitution, except where the Supreme Court has so stated (such as the first, fourth, fifth, and sixth Amendments). It is also noteworthy that many State Constitutions put in limitations on State power very similar to the Bill of Rights to ensure that their citizens rights were not infringed by the State government as well.

Actually, just recently the Supreme Court in McDonald v. Chicago finally "incorporated" the Second Amendment and held that it applies equally to the states. We just haven't seen enough cases work their way through the court system yet to see the ramifications of this, but much of the old case law getting passed around in this thread is likely reversed by McDonald.



Here's the Wiki-view for a 30,000 foot view:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I read the entire McDonald v. Chicago on Wikipedia. That sounds like a logical, solid, and good decision - applying the 2nd Amendment to the states. Quite frankly, I think it was slicing it pretty thin to rule that the 2nd Amendment applies federally, but not to the states. But, that's what lawyers and courts do, slice it thin.



Good find Sno.

Thanks Sno, Dgawg, Jv and spiff. It appears that obama and other controllers are ignoring this in the name of "reasonable gun control".

A friend of mine just sent me this info in an email. I cannot take credit for the info. Just passing it on .....





The 5 Worst/Recent Mass Murders in the USA (with a Firearm) Came from Democrats



The five worst mass killings, where a firearm was used, have a common thread. Hint #1: They didn’t belong to the NRA. They don’t fit the stereotype of the “red-neck” gun owner.



Check it out …

1. Ft Hood: Registered Democrat/Muslim.



2. Columbine: Too young to vote; both families were registered Democrats and progressive liberals.



3. Virginia Tech: Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff.



4. Colorado Theater: Registered Democrat; staff worker on the Obama campaign; Occupy Wall Street participant; progressive liberal.



5. Connecticut School Shooter: Registered Democrat; hated Christians.



Common thread is that all of these shooters were progressive liberal Democrats.



Also, of the worst killings in the last several decades, only one was a female, all the rest were boys, barely men. Their role models were rappers, action movies, comics and violent video games.



Our problem isn’t weapons, it’s boys without boundaries. Who live in ‘progressive’ households.

I don't want to muddy the water here but I am always a little leery of over-reliance on SC rulings as a protection of rights. The courts can and do change and not always for the better.



I suppose the incorporation of the 2nd amendment is the most natural means of handling it for the courts but we must remember and fight for the preservation of the American concept that rights are God given and do not come from the Bill of Rights or any man. I would have preferred that they ruled our rights to be God-given and needed no further reasoning or complications for the court to protect them.



As most of you know, the founders barely thought the Bill of Rights necessary or good and certainly would not have thought an incorporation ruling necessary. Just because they did not intend for the constitution to apply to the states does not mean that our rights were not to be above state law.



How far we have fallen intellectually and morally that such basic rights and freedoms are no longer self-evident and the recognition of the power and authority of God is so far removed.

TWW -

I agree with your post.



However, living here in Kalifornia, I am grateful when the SCOTUS intervenes and keeps the craziness here in Kalifornia in check. We are a shining example of what you do not want to become.



For the folks that live in Texas, Arizona, Utah, Idaho, etc. - you don't have to worry so much. Here? I live in never, never land of the crazies.

Ddawg wrote:
A friend of mine just sent me this info in an email. I cannot take credit for the info. Just passing it on .....





The 5 Worst/Recent Mass Murders in the USA (with a Firearm) Came from Democrats



The five worst mass killings, where a firearm was used, have a common thread. Hint #1: They didn’t belong to the NRA. They don’t fit the stereotype of the “red-neck” gun owner.



Check it out …

1. Ft Hood: Registered Democrat/Muslim.



2. Columbine: Too young to vote; both families were registered Democrats and progressive liberals.



3. Virginia Tech: Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff.



4. Colorado Theater: Registered Democrat; staff worker on the Obama campaign; Occupy Wall Street participant; progressive liberal.



5. Connecticut School Shooter: Registered Democrat; hated Christians.



Common thread is that all of these shooters were progressive liberal Democrats.



Also, of the worst killings in the last several decades, only one was a female, all the rest were boys, barely men. Their role models were rappers, action movies, comics and violent video games.



Our problem isn’t weapons, it’s boys without boundaries. Who live in ‘progressive’ households.

It seems nature concurs that government programs create violent liberals. I think someone may have posted this vid before but it is interesting and shows how the only thing to keep destructive liberals in place are conservatives in power. Otherwise they run wild and leave a path of destruction.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-B5W4lq_LmU

Ddawg wrote:
TWW -

I agree with your post.



However, living here in Kalifornia, I am grateful when the SCOTUS intervenes and keeps the craziness here in Kalifornia in check. We are a shining example of what you do not want to become.



For the folks that live in Texas, Arizona, Utah, Idaho, etc. - you don't have to worry so much. Here? I live in never, never land of the crazies.

Yes, I am originally from Kalifornia as you spell it (I need to get the russian spelling program to turn that K around) and it is very sad for me to see what my native state has become. The red star and the bear are taking on a whole new meaning.



I agree we have to take what we can get but we must always remember the truth and teach our children and anyone else who will listen.

Like the healthcare bill. If members of congress do not have to live by the law, they should have no authority to pass it. The fact that feinstein and the like think that they are permitted to have "assault rifles" while the rest of use don't have that same privilige is deplorable and points out how bad this legislation is.

I've also noticed that those in favor of gun control keep talking about hunting. And how no one uses and AR for hunting or how you don't need 15 round magazines to hunt. Or no one uses an "assault" rifle to hunt.



The 2nd amendment ISN'T about hunting.

SpiffCoug wrote:
I've also noticed that those in favor of gun control keep talking about hunting. And how no one uses and AR for hunting or how you don't need 15 round magazines to hunt. Or no one uses an "assault" rifle to hunt.



The 2nd amendment ISN'T about hunting.

I've noticed gun control advocates keep mentioning "children", "60000 rounds of ammo", "high capacity magazines". Why? Because they bring out emotion. People hear the words children and shooting. Next they hear that we need to protect children by banning guns. Because of the emotions involved with these words it is "obvious" that banning guns makes sense.



If someone is shooting up a school, he doesn't need 60000 rounds of ammo, less than 100 in the right hands and gun will do, I guarantee he isn't packing around even 1000 rounds on his person. I don't know why it matter how much ammo someone owns.



I also find it funny that gun control persons find gun right persons paranoid. Let me get this straight. These people think I'm "nutty" because I want a gun in my closet with a high capacity magazine in order to defend my home, family, food storage ;) , and myself. But you want to disarm all law abiding citizens because you feel this will make "children" safer? Who has the bigger case of paranoia? Do people really believe they need to disarm my neighborhood and country to send our "children" to school safely? If it's really that bad, and you really believe your kid is in that much danger, I'd advise homeschooling. And keep a gun close, you'll feel safer. Sheesh.

SpiffCoug wrote:
I've also noticed that those in favor of gun control keep talking about hunting. And how no one uses and AR for hunting or how you don't need 15 round magazines to hunt. Or no one uses an "assault" rifle to hunt.



The 2nd amendment ISN'T about hunting.

+1. You noticed that too? ;) I have a hard time grasping difficult, twisted, convoluted concepts. Thank Heaven the 2nd Amendment isn't in that category. It's straight forward, brief, and direct.



Yet, the folks that would infringe, and take away the Constitutional right to bear arms, twist it into something it was never intended to be; limited to hunting - and written so long ago, by men in a dusty old age, there is no way they could understand the fact that now, weapons for the protection of personal safety and freedom are just parlor talk notions of a day gone by.

Ddawg wrote:
Sounds like a classic knee jerk reaction - excluding thoughtful, objective, fact driven debate and decision. In the minds of the Liberals, their intentions are pure, good, and the only correct solution. Sadly, there are unintended and unforseen consequences. Time will show, the desired results (safety throughout society and no more mass murder) are not achieved.

Quinn's 1st. Law on liberalism. Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Ddawg wrote:

I've also noticed that those in favor of gun control keep talking about hunting. And how no one uses and AR for hunting or how you don't need 15 round magazines to hunt. Or no one uses an "assault" rifle to hunt.



The 2nd amendment ISN'T about hunting.

+1. You noticed that too? ;) I have a hard time grasping difficult, twisted, convoluted concepts. Thank Heaven the 2nd Amendment isn't in that category. It's straight forward, brief, and direct.



Yet, the folks that would infringe, and take away the Constitutional right to bear arms, twist it into something it was never intended to be; limited to hunting - and written so long ago, by men in a dusty old age, there is no way they could understand the fact that now, weapons for the protection of personal safety and freedom are just parlor talk notions of a day gone by.

I think it's just that a lot of people understand the benefits of guns in the hunting context. The idea that guns are benificial for self protection (especially from the government) is a just more difficult for some to accept, given their personal experience, history, and the statistics.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

cornhole153 wrote:

SpiffCoug wrote:
I've also noticed that those in favor of gun control keep talking about hunting. And how no one uses and AR for hunting or how you don't need 15 round magazines to hunt. Or no one uses an "assault" rifle to hunt.



The 2nd amendment ISN'T about hunting.

+1. You noticed that too? ;) I have a hard time grasping difficult, twisted, convoluted concepts. Thank Heaven the 2nd Amendment isn't in that category. It's straight forward, brief, and direct.



Yet, the folks that would infringe, and take away the Constitutional right to bear arms, twist it into something it was never intended to be; limited to hunting - and written so long ago, by men in a dusty old age, there is no way they could understand the fact that now, weapons for the protection of personal safety and freedom are just parlor talk notions of a day gone by.

I think it's just that a lot of people understand the benefits of guns in the hunting context. The idea that guns are benificial for self protection (especially from the government) is a just more difficult for some to accept, given their personal experience, history, and the statistics.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

You're right. History says that Great Britain would have loved to have had the 13 colonies unarmed.... :bug:



Thier "Personal history" often includes the fact that they themselves believe in guns for them, just not others...and your statistics are nothing more than cherry picked numbers assembled to try to fortify your position. You're not open minded, you wand others to beleive what you beleive, and assembe numbers to fortify what you happen to beleive

cornhole153 wrote:

SpiffCoug wrote:
I've also noticed that those in favor of gun control keep talking about hunting. And how no one uses and AR for hunting or how you don't need 15 round magazines to hunt. Or no one uses an "assault" rifle to hunt.



The 2nd amendment ISN'T about hunting.

+1. You noticed that too? ;) I have a hard time grasping difficult, twisted, convoluted concepts. Thank Heaven the 2nd Amendment isn't in that category. It's straight forward, brief, and direct.



Yet, the folks that would infringe, and take away the Constitutional right to bear arms, twist it into something it was never intended to be; limited to hunting - and written so long ago, by men in a dusty old age, there is no way they could understand the fact that now, weapons for the protection of personal safety and freedom are just parlor talk notions of a day gone by.

I think it's just that a lot of people understand the benefits of guns in the hunting context. The idea that guns are benificial for self protection (especially from the government) is a just more difficult for some to accept, given their personal experience, history, and the statistics.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

No, it's because if you can convince people the only guns they need are ones for hunting, you can get them to justify getting rid of all non-hunting guns. This all just one more step in the growing tyranny of the government.

cornhole153 wrote:

SpiffCoug wrote:
I've also noticed that those in favor of gun control keep talking about hunting. And how no one uses and AR for hunting or how you don't need 15 round magazines to hunt. Or no one uses an "assault" rifle to hunt.



The 2nd amendment ISN'T about hunting.

+1. You noticed that too? ;) I have a hard time grasping difficult, twisted, convoluted concepts. Thank Heaven the 2nd Amendment isn't in that category. It's straight forward, brief, and direct.



Yet, the folks that would infringe, and take away the Constitutional right to bear arms, twist it into something it was never intended to be; limited to hunting - and written so long ago, by men in a dusty old age, there is no way they could understand the fact that now, weapons for the protection of personal safety and freedom are just parlor talk notions of a day gone by.

I think it's just that a lot of people understand the benefits of guns in the hunting context. The idea that guns are benificial for self protection (especially from the government) is a just more difficult for some to accept, given their personal experience, history, and the statistics.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Further, so because some people can comprehend how guns help secure your freedoms, the government should be allowed to restrain, infringe or diminish that freedom?